Dodgers Extend Clayton Kershaw

The Dodgers have officially announced the extension of ace Clayton Kershaw, who receives a groundbreaking seven-year, $215MM contract one year before he would have qualified for free agency. Notably, the deal includes an out clause that the southpaw can exercise after five seasons, at which time he will still be just 30 years old.

Kershaw's representatives at Excel Sports Management have secured their client the highest-ever annual salary for a baseball player. His $30.7MM AAV bests those achieved in the one-year, $28MM deal for Roger Clemens back in 2007 and Alex Rodriguez's ten-year, $275MM deal.

Kershaw's extension also gives him more new money than any pitcher contract in baseball history. Indeed, the deal exceeds the next biggest commitment — the seven-year, $161MM C.C. Sabathia deal — by a whopping $54MM. Likewise, it dwarfs other, more recent guarantees, including Zack Greinke's $147MM free agent pact and the extensions of Cole Hamels($144M in new money), Justin Verlander($140MM), and Felix Hernandez($135.5MM).

Though it does not have a no-trade clause, Kershaw's contract contains language that would significantly impact his rights in a trade scenario. First and foremost, Kershaw would obtain the right to void the deal if traded. If he is sent to another club mid-season, he could void the rest of the deal before the start of the following season. If, instead, Kershaw is dealt during the offseason, he gets the right to void the remainder of the contract after the end of the ensuing campaign. He would also pick up a one-time, $3MM bonus if he is traded during the offseason.

Obviously, these clauses present a significant barrier to any trade, at least until the point at which Kershaw's opt-out clause would otherwise be available to him. In particular, they convey immense leverage to Kershaw to demand a massive, new extension from any team that wishes to acquire him.

Kershaw's salary will be somewhat backloaded. The big lefty will earn $22MM in 2014, $18MM of which is a signing bonus and only $4MM of which is in salary. His salary then tracks as follows: $30MM (2015), $32MM (2016), $33MM (2017), $33MM (2018), $32MM (2019), and $33MM (2020). The deal also contains incentives: Kershaw stands to earn $1MM for a Cy Young campaign and $500K for landing second or third in the voting.

This means that the opt-out decision facing Kershaw after the 2018 season will effectively be a two-year, $65MM proposition. If he leaves that money on the table, the deal would end up paying him $150MM over five years, good for a straight $30MM AAV.

Kershaw's nearly unprecedented level of early-career performance had lined him up for a projected $18.15MM arbitration payday this year, in the analysis of MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz. As MLBTR's Tim Dierkes notes on Twitter, that would imply an approximately $32.8MM AAV ($197MM over six years) for Kershaw's free agent years.

Indeed, Kershaw's historic contract was earned by a legitimately historic run in his career's early going. The soon-to-be 26-year-old became only the third pitcher in MLB history — following Greg Maddux and Lefty Grove — to lead the big leagues in ERA for three straight seasons, which he accomplished after posting the low mark again last year. He has registered a close second to Verlander in terms of fWAR (18.5 against 19.1) among starters over that same time period.

Last year was Kershaw's best season yet, as he posted a 1.83 ERA in 236 innings, leading the league in strikeouts (232) and WHIP (0.915) to go along with his ERA title. The net of his MLB career to date is a 2.60 ERA in 1,180 innings, buttressed by 9.2 K/9 against 3.0 BB/9. He has made at least 30 starts in every year since 2009 and has thrown over 200 innings for each of the last four seasons. Needless to say, Kershaw has been both outstanding and durable.

For the Dodgers, Kershaw adds a massive, but seemingly manageable, new obligation to the books. As I explained back in November, Los Angeles was running away from the rest of the league in terms of post-2014 salary obligations. Though major signings by clubs like the Yankees and Rangers have evened things out somewhat in the interim, L.A. will continue to set the pace on future spending. But that spending level is backed up by an unmatched $340MM local TV revenue stream.

As I further explored, the Dodgers stand to gain the most out of any team in baseball from an inflationary salary environment, as their massive obligations stand to see the largest decrease in real value as salaries rise. The money owed Kershaw, too, could reduce substantially in relative terms if salary trends continue upward. Moreover, as also illustrated in that piece, Los Angeles has a huge ramp-down in its future commitments beginning after the 2018 season, which creates some additional breathing room. But with the opt out landing at that same point, that salary space could ultimately end up going towards yet another extension.

As Dierkes notes on Twitter, Kershaw's contract is the ninth MLB deal to include an opt-out clause. Of the other eight deals, only those agreed to by Vernon Wells and Elvis Andrus came by way of extension rather than free agency.

Looking at the broader market impact, the Kershaw extension will undoubtedly be pointed to in negotiations regarding other top starters. Major arms that are set for free agency next year include Max Scherzer, James Shields, and Jon Lester, with David Priceheadlining the 2016 crop. Though Kershaw may be in a league of his own given his age and track record, his new deal certainly stretches the scale of reasoanbly attainable salaries upwards.

ESPN.com's Ramona Shelburne first reported the signing and its terms (via Twitter). Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com first reported the annual payment structure on Twitter. Joel Sherman of the New York Post first reported the deal's trade provisions (alllinkstoTwitter).

Might be worth it, but if I were the Dodgers I’m hoping that 5 year escape is mutual.

I don’t think he’d have gotten a lot more on the market, so I’m not real sure this is even a great “deal” other than the fact that they don’t have to worry that he’d take 33m/year from Seattle instead.

Hes saying the mileage could be high on his arm already. Can’t see him pitching 7 years of 230 innings and still being able to get a huge contract after that. thats a good 2800 innings. Halladay broke down after 2700. Sabathia showed signs of slowing down after 2750 innings. 25 is young, but he shooting his bullets very early.

To a guy that plays only 33 out 161 games? He’s getting a million a start pretty much and I doubt he averages more then 7 innings per start over the course of the contract. If he does, his arm won’t age well.

Surprisingly reasonable in terms of years and where the opt-out is placed (two years of a lesser Kershaw, in the future where poor performance keeps him from opting out, is hardly a problem for the Dodgers). Seems like the two sides got along pretty well.

To me, this all depends how much it limits their budget for now and upcoming seasons. Obviously it’s risky to pay him this much, but it’s worse if the salary handicaps you from making more moves later on. I also believe pitchers abilities deteriorate faster and have a higher rate of injury. (although, I’m not 100% of the validity of this statement and, of course, individual players can be quite different)

If they have the financial room to spare, then it’s not all that bad of a deal. Although, you could argue that it’s doubtful the guy would’ve made that much in free agency. (let’s remember that the contact is actually worth more because of that opt-out cause)

How?Verlander seems to be declining and Sanchez had a career year he probably can’t repeat. Greinke was injured and still managed to put up great numbers.For next year I would take Greinke over those 2, no question. Plus Porcello is a marginal 4 at best.

How?Verlander seems to be declining and Sanchez had a career year he probably can’t repeat. Greinke was injured and still managed to put up great numbers.For next year I would take Greinke over those 2, no question. Plus Porcello is a marginal 4 at best.

Nats rotation has a case. Gio, Strasburg, and J-Zimm all have ace level numbers and Fister is pretty much the best #4 in the league. If Detwiler can stay healthy or Taylor Jordan takes the spot and produces, I don’t think there’s a better 1-5 anywhere.

Haren had a rough 1st half last season, but he appeared to regain his form the 2nd half and has an excellent track record. Any team would be happy to have him in their #4 spot.

There are few teams in the league that can say their #5 spot is locked up, but Zach Lee could make an impact, Stephen Fife has been productive for the Dodgers, and if Josh Beckett has anything left in the tank at all, he’s in a contract year.

Chad Billingsley could also make an impact mid-season. Solid #3 when healthy.

Yes, strong arguments could be made for the Dodgers having the best rotation. The 1-3 spots certainly match anybody, and the 4-5 spots have a lot of potential.

The only thing that makes me mildly optimistic about Beckett is that this is a contract year. If he has absolutely anything left, we should see it this season.

But even without Beckett… you can’t complain about Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu and Haren as your top 4, and the #5 spot can be managed by guys like Fife, Magill and Zach Lee if Beckett and Billingsley aren’t able.

Yes, everybody… arguably. Baseball is a game largely involving chance, and we also have never seen Tanaka throw a single MLB pitch. They would arguably be the best rotation in baseball, because there’s always a chance that another rotation will simply outperform them in 2014.

With contracts skyrocketing small market teams will never be able to keep their superstars. I love baseball but can understand why so many other people have turned their backs on the game. With no salary cap and revenue sharing being a joke, this is just bad for baseball.

Yeah, but this flies in the face of “lock ’em up early” if the price for early is the same as the market would likely give.

Lets say the A’s get a guy who wins the Cy Young two years in a row at 22 and 23 with no history of injury and he also rescues puppies in the offseason.

What’s the contract? Clearly he’ll be justified in hauling in 30m+/year, or 1/2 to 1/3 of the entire payroll of the team. This contract more or less ruins the idea of locking a guy up in his younger years for a below market rate if he’s really an ace.

Because the Angels, Blue Jays, Cubs, and Mets all had great seasons right? Keeping your superstars can do as much harm as good. Look at all the productive major league talent teams acquired for players like Griffey and Teixeira. Most of time, those teams acquiring all that talent immediately contended. It’s about roster balance and depth, not superstars.

I kind of agree with you on this…with the new TV mega-deals reinforcing the larger market teams’ dominance (in spending, anyway), it seems as though a true salary cap will never happen. The luxury tax threshold seems like a half-hearted attempt at controlling spending, but the Yanks, Dodgers, and Angels will not think twice about eclipsing the tax threshold for Tanaka.

I don’t care so much about the big contracts, its simply a market-dictated reality. Its all fine and good to see guys get paid and to see teams take risks, But that’s the thing: All of this money for Kershaw and the deal is not even a risky move by the Dodgers. Even if this deal goes completely south, its really not even going to be considered a “waste” of money because there is just so much money out there now. LA’s impending deal makes this move justifiable in so many ways, particularly because I now think of U.S. dollars in baseball as equivalent to monopoly money.

Good deal for Kershaw. Now he can hit free agency again when he is 31, and get locked up for even more money. And he gets paid the highest aav in the game. He also gets security, because there is always a chance he gets injured this year. He may have topped this total value in free agency, but this allows him 2nd shot at free agency, and nobody would have paid that high aav.

waste of money,giving over 200mm to a pitcher is risky, you have to remember that pitchers arm over time will go down, you don’t know what going to happen to his arm, even this year, he could get tommy john and all the money is then a waste, for a batter its much easier to give that kind of money, look at david ortiz, he is still hitting like a pro, he aged like fine wine, but pitcher don’t, dodgers you love throwing money away, pitcher should not reach that kind of many.

The problem with this is the money is still there to be spent. What would happen is the top players would all max out and then the next group of good, but not great would start to reach the max also. You would have Kershaw and Cano maxed out, but then also players like Elsbury, Choo and Tanaka maxing out because the teams still have money to spend. I would rather see the top guys get the most and the middle guys getting enough, than both groups getting the most.

because i’m unbiased and just because i’m yankee fan does not mean i hate every time and ignore them and not care about what other teams do. i love the yankees but they waste money to much money, just like the dodgers.

Surprisingly, that’s a good alternative to big albatross contracts if a player breaks down.

MLB I know is a “don’t blink first” league and people seem to think that’s necessary, but all you have to do is look at the Angels to see how well that strategy works out. They’re the ones who managed to snag two of the “best” free agents when both of the teams on the other end were faced with a “what’s going to happen, are they going to let ’em walk?”.

Answer was yes. Both of those teams went to the playoffs immediately after not signing a guy to a long-term top value contract.

The Angels still don’t look any better than the 3rd place team in the AL West, if not the 4th best team and not much is going to change that with a billion dollars worth of regret on the bench.

A contract this long and large is insured for exactly what you are talking about. At the same time, if he is never hurt, this contract is a steal. A perennial CY winner, getting better every year, this is not a bad deal.

At this juncture, they’re arguably worse. What made me sick was them using that whole “magic” schtick last season whilst having the largest payroll in baseball. Who would have thought this 200 million dollar ball club would go on an insane winning streak?! Must be magic!

Honestly a smart GM wouldn’t. Only 2 years of solid playing isn’t worth a 350M extension. I would love to see Phillies fans if Howard had 320M left on his deal because he had 3 monster years. How about Dontrel Willis?

I think it’s a good deal for both sides. LA isn’t locked into a ten year deal, and Kershaw, if he’s still performing at a high level, can either opt out or get an extension after five. Creative and smart. Seems like a talented, hardworking, dedicated guy–knocking off the previous record holder (s) for highest AAV

Let’s call it what it is:
— The Dodgers just paid market rate (or slightly above) in AAV for Kershaw – this was no bargain and certainly no discount.
— The Dodgers got him for less years than many anticipated. A win for them.
— Kershaw was able to negotiate the opt out clause. My guess, that was a concession for only 7 years. A win for Kershaw.
— The Dodgers and Kershaw just raised the cost of starting pitching for everyone else. While a player like Strausburg won’t have the track record (or age) of Kershaw, his pure stuff is just as good if not better. If Kershaw signs for $31M this year, I have to think that Strausburg could be in line for $27-28M AAV following a solid 2014 campaign.

That’s one of the reasons he rarely throws it now. He’s become much more about the slider and changeup to complement the fastball. He may only throw the big bender about 5-10 times a game, and I’ve seen him throw it less than 5 times in games.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is his 3rd most thrown pitch, well behind the FB and change. I can’t find the stats right now, but I don’t seem to remember him throwing it as much as other pitchers have. Hopefully his limited use will prolong his arm.

Very possibly, but we know fastball velocity isn’t around forever, so pitchers have to learn to rely more and more on their breaking and off speed pitches as they age. Anyway, I’m happy they didn’t give him ten or more years, like some thought was inevitable.

Very true about velocity. I too am glad they didn’t give him 10 years, though I wouldn’t mind seeing him a Dodger for life. My hope is that with his improving control and pitch location, he can still be effective as his velocity declines. Continuing to develop his change and slider and maybe working in a cutter will certainly keep him near the top for many years to come. I think of Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine as examples of “pitchers” who beat you with nasty stuff and not just heat.

Throws the FB & Slider 85% of the time. Curve is next and the change is surprisingly low. Shows how awesome he is that he barely had a slider when he first came up, and now it’s his most dominant out pitch

Strausburg has injury issues, hasn’t pitched a full season in his career, has no postseason experience. Never got a cy-young vote, only 1 allstar appearance, just 1 CG, ERA 33/100 runs higher. I’d say he tops out at 16M AAV in Arbitration. When he hits the market he could be a 20-22M pitcher. Not yet, and not even close to Kershaw.

Call me crazy but the rate stats between the two are nearly identical. One could easily say that they are indistinguishable. Strasburg strikes a few more people out while Kershaw has better command.

It all comes down to injury and risk. One could look at Strasburg and see nothing but red flag injuries. Kershaw has been the model of health. Of course, someone else could see Kershaw with 1400 innings pitched vs Strasburg’s 750 and conclude that one guy has a lot more mileage on his arm than the other. Strasburg has already had his TJ surgery and has successfully recovered. He has been handled with kid gloves. Kershaw, meanwhile, has been throwing 200+ innings/season since he was 21.

If Strasburg puts together a full season (200+ innings) with his usual stat line, signing him to extension that is similar to Kershaw’s does not sound crazy to me. You get him for 10-20% less AAV, probably with less years. Both those factor to compensate for his elevated injury risk. That would put him in the 5/$140M – 6/$170M range. Very likely IMO.

With Strasburg’s injury history why would a team sign him to an extension after the 2014 season with still 2 full years of control. He’s not a FA until the 2017 season. My friend it’s not only the innings pitched that got Kershaw his contract. It was his amazing consistency and a little thing call 2 CY Young Award wins and 1 Cy Young 2nd place in the last 3 years all before his 26th birthday. Strasburg has nothing close to that resume.

You cannot operate on what if. I believe a baseball organization should operate on fact. And I have no idea if there is insurance involved here, either. It doesn’t matter. Kershaw is the only athlete I have seen that I would trust with this contract. He’s simply amazing and not just on the field. He’s perhaps the perfect professional athlete.

Actually dodgers still can and will sign tanaka…. 8 billion dollar tv deal money andddd we were already packed in cash. Tanaka is gonna join dodgers unless they come out and say they aren’t going for him

Not sure how you can call the dodgers World Series contenders considering you HAVENT made the World Series since 1988. So if tanaka was going by World Series lately wouldn’t he pick the Yankees becuse they have at least won one this decade

.
I love how you dodger fans think every office season that you just won the works series and will be repeating again.

I don’t understand why dodger fans are so excited to have such a large payroll, and yet not win the world series. Geez, now I understand why people hate yankee fans, but at least we’ve won in the past century.

The Dodgers having a healthy Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier and Hanley Ramirez might just make a difference in the postseason…

Kemp wasn’t on the postseason roster, Ethier wasn’t really useable due to an ankle injury, and Ramirez couldn’t play in the NLCS after being hit in the ribs his first AB.

Those were 3 of the Dodgers 5 most productive hitters.

So, yes, the Dodgers are a World Series contender. All they need are healthy players come the postseason.

With any luck, Guerrero should be an upgrade (at least on offense) over Mark Ellis, too. And I personally expect Haren to have a better 2014 season than Nolasco, but we’ll see. Tanaka could still be in play, as well.

Sorry I just pose the question because I can’t help but listen to the sports radio in the area, and every other call on improving the Yankees a couple months ago was “sign/trade for Kershaw”. I found it amusing.

A bit more dollars on average then I thought he might get but fewer years. But It does work to both the Dodgers and Kershaw advantage. The Dodgers get a break in the years and Kershaw gets to cash in big time again at 30 years old if he continues on the track he has been on pitching wise.

LOL @ hamstrung… Beckett’s & Billingsley’s contracts are done after this season (bout 30M off the books) and we are done paying Manny & Andruw deferred $$$ (thanks McCourt) and we will still have all our prospects to make a deal with since we won’t be trading them for Price. I say we are set up pretty good for the long haul.

The dodgers were putting out a 100M payroll team when their tv revenue was only 50M. Now their tv revenue is 340M plus the 25M for the shared contract. So if they really wanted to, a 415M payroll, including luxury tax, would not be a total absurdity from a financial standpoint (although it would be an absurdity as far as competitive balance).

My guess is this contract that Close negotiated give you a glimpse into what it will probably take to get Tanaka. I’m going to guess 7 years with an opt-out after 5 for $20MM per +/-. The team looking to sign Tanaka is probably looking at a total of $160MM ($140MM for Tanaka and $20MM posting fee) plus or minus.

I think you are right on the numbers if not close. Both are similar in age and I think the opt out is huge requirement for Tanaka. I think its possible he sees a 7 yr deal now, but opt out after 4 or 5 is also likely.

The pitcher affects every last AB of that 5th day though. A position player will have affect roughly 1/9 of the AB’s of the game on a daily basis. Even when you consider defense, the position player only gets the ball a handful of times per game. All of the “only plays every 5 days” thing is pointless when you think about it.
Edit: Here’s some additional numbers, Joey Votto lead MLB in PA’s at 726 last season. An entire 71 pitchers faced more batters than Joey Votto had PA’s. Clayton Kershaw? 908 Batters faced. I personally think if Clayton can be more or less what he has been the last few years for just about 4 of the years, this deal will look great when it ends.

What are the advantages to either side of the first year being the $4 million salary and the other $18 million being a signing bonus? It’s all money in Kershaw’s pockets, obviously, but there must be some reason they’re doing it this way.

My friend their is no difference for MLB AAV for luxury tax purposes.. The easiest way to explain it is if you just took the contract as a straight 7 years $215MM the AAV is $30.71MM per year.
Doing it the way the Dodgers are doing it with the $18MM being a signing bonus it comes out to an AAV of the same thing. Take $197MM divided by 7 years (that’s the $215 minus $18MM signing bonus) = $28.14MM plus the prorated share of $18MM over 7 years = $2.57MM per. that’s $28.14MM + $2.57MM = $30.71MM AAV either way you cut it it comes to the same $30.71MM AAV for MLB tax purposes.
The only benefit to the Dodgers is the actual payments to Kershaw are not equal payments, but for MLB luxury tax purposes that doesn’t matter to them.
My guess and it only that as to why they are showing $18MM as a signing bonus the first year is because that’s pretty much exactly what Kershaw was estimated to have made had he gone through the arbitration process this year. But again it makes no difference for tax purposes.
The obvious advantage to Kershaw is that $18MM signing bonus even though MLB pro-rates it over the life of the contract it’s paid to him in one lump sum and not over the course of the baseball season or year as would normally be if it were just $22MM ($18MM signing bonus and $4MM salary).
That’s about as clear as I can make it. Hope that answers your question(s).

Imagine what he would have got if he waited to be a free agent? Good signing by the dodgers to lock him up now, and it shows that Kershaw really wanted to stay in LA. Not only is Kershaw a great pitcher, he brings so much to the community and I guarantee he will use his millions to help many needy causes.

Factoring in this contract to the baseball-reference estimate of the Dodgers 2014 payroll adding in the balance of the 40 man roster and benefits MLB uses to calculate a teams payroll for luxury tax purposes the Dodgers 2014 payroll as of today not including a Tanaka signing comes to between $255 and $260MM.

If they were to sign Tanaka add another $20MM to that on a per year basis and the Dodgers payroll for luxury tax purposes would be about $280MM. The Dodgers are taxed at a 30% rate on their 2014 payroll, 30% of $91MM (difference between $189MM threshold and $280MM) = $27MM approximately. A total expense for the 2014 Dodgers ownership for the team to take the field, $307MM

Actually new owners lowered food and beer prices along parking last year from when McCourt ran the team. As a ticket plan holder I certainly do not mind paying a few bucks more if it means backing the team when they put forth this kind of commitment to building and sustaining a competitive franchise. Every fan should wish the same from their franchise

Very possibly, but I could hardly believe the number of sellouts we attended last year, some of them in the middle of the week. A far cry from the last couple McCourt years when you could hear the crickets chirping in the aisles at a Tuesday night game.

Yes it does. Signing bonuses are prorated over the course of the contract. So in Kershaw’s case his $18MM signing bonus counts for $2.57MM per year. But for MLB luxury tax purposes they do not decrease the AAV. So in Kershaws case his AAV for tax purposes is $30.71MM per.

It probably means an extension for Hanley is out of the question until the season starts so it won’t affect the 2014 LT calculations. It also means they probably would have to dump most of Kemps salary which they could do if he has a good start to the season and restores his value. They also have about 37 million coming off the books in 2015 with Beckett, Billingsley and Haren.

The Yankees paid a LT of 28 million last year, so 27 is not too high. Next year they are up to 40% and then 50% so they probably won’t be spending much next year

I agree the luxury tax number is relative, $27MM on the surface isn’t that much. The issue though is that their payroll would be $280MM +/- in order for that tax number.of $280MM if they signed Tanaka. That would be over $50MM more in actual payroll then the Yankees had in 2013 when they were taxed that $28MM you mentioned.

My friend don’t be so quick to count of Haren’s money coming off the books. His 2015 deal vest if he pitches 180 innings in 2014. That’s not that much of a stretch. He pitched 170 innings in 2013 and 177 innings in 2012.

Did they say what the ticket price will be for the following years? Let’s see what they will be in 2016 if the resign Hanley and go for Tanaka and whatever else spending they will do. It’s going to catch up eventually…

Guggenheim has over $160 billion in investments. They know where to make money and where to spend money. They’ve lowered the price on parking, food, included Wi-Fi and have been making it a place to be. They even lowered the price of some tickets.
Prices for everything is going to go up because the value of the dollar has gone down.

I don’t understand why they felt they needed to offer him an opt out after 5 years. Wasn’t the 7 year deal alone enough to get his signature on a contract? Now, if the clause could be executed by either party, then that would make sense for the Dodgers. But the only way it gets exercised is if he’s pitching great; in which case, the Dodgers wouldn’t want him to opt out. If he’s pitching poorly or injured, no way he opts out, so that clause offers no protection for LA.

Its usually the player that requests that. They may have started at 10 years and a lower AAV with no optout, but Kershaw wanted the optout so they dropped it to 7 years and a higher AAV with the optout.

Why didn’t the Dodgers wait to sign the deal after the season started so as to prevent the increased AAV from going on the books in 2014. That’s what the Red Sox have done with their extensions. Of course, maybe Kershaw did not want to risk being injured in ST.

Which statement? Your negativity is not necessary and your wish of harm was unwarranted. Second, he has pitched over 200 innings per season over the last five years.
It’s not good for you to be so negative, might force you to be a fan of a team that doesn’t have money to spend.

Point is, the list goes on and on. The Mets don’t need to pay a pitcher $200 million to have a great pitching staff. Not for a long time at least. The Dodgers have money and no farm. The Mets have their ownership issues, but we all know how quickly that tide turns, right Frank McCourt?!

Let’s see if the Dodgers do anything with all this money. They haven’t done anything yet! Glad you like your chances though. Happy rehab!

I’m not a Dodgers fan but your staff list is mostly prospects who haven’t even appeared in an MLB game and you’re trying to compare them to Kershaw?… Also isn’t Harvey out for all of 2014?.. Happy rehab.

Let me be the first one to say I thought he was gone for sure. This proofs that Clayton is a class act guy. He is perfect for the Dodgers. Also if your the Yankees you HAVE to get Tanaka if they don’t they’re is no one for a very longgggggggggg time as a free agent pitcher.

And Rick Hahn’s contract extension for Chris Sale looks even sweeter. Both signed extensions up to 7 years long, except ALL 7 years for Sale can fit inside of 2 years for Kershaw. LOL. What a steal that was. Nice job, Slick Rick.

Well if Kershaw is worth a million dollars per start, what do you think trouts worth? $150 million per season? What players make in general is rediculous, but what they pay pitchers is absurd. A starter may make between 32-35 starts a year, if healthy. this is basically paying kershaw $910,000 per game played over the life of the contract. NINE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS PER GAME.

One thing I heard on the radio was to think about the playoffs. A dominant pitcher is extremely important in playoffs. so think about it like each playoff start worth 3-5 million per start. So that would make the regular season starts worth like $400k per start. Still a lot of money no matter how you look at it.

Pitchers and catchers report soon Then there is spring training, and playoffs if they make it. Who are we kidding, when they make it. It’s nit like he only skews up to work every fifth day. There is prep work before and after the game, training in between each start, homework on the next team. It’s me work than we see, and in the name of capitalism, it’s one hell of a job and he deserves it.

Does anyone know, in baseball, is there any advantage to either the team or player in part of the contract being a “signing bonus”. It all still counts against the luxury threshold, no? Was just curious what the point of that is. Maybe it’s just paid up front?

I don’t think signing bonuses work for any existing MLB player, they are for draftees as the incentive to sign with the team. Just because a team drafts a player doesn’t mean he has to sign with them. So they offer them a signing bonus to try and lure them in and then their regular minor league contract begins when their first season starts which can often be peanuts in comparison, at least for the first rounders.

From what i know the signing bonus gives him the money upfront instead of spread out through the year. So.. he got an 18 million dollar check when he signed his contract.But I also wonder if it counts toward the payroll/luxury tax limit

As crazy expensive as it sounds, and as much as I’d like to ridicule the Dodgers for making this signing, it probably won’t end up being a terrible contract, UNLESS Kershaw gets injured. But then again, isn’t that always a risk? A Win Above Replacement is currently going for $5-$7 million in the FA market. So to “earn” his contract, he’d have to average somewhere between 4.4-6.2 WAR per year. Probably not out of the question considering his track record, how young he is and that there shouldn’t be any sort of drop off anytime soon. That also doesn’t take into account “WAR inflation”, meaning 5 years from now, it will likely cost more than $5-$7 mil for each win above replacement.

Not having a NTC or having language to prevent/discourage a trade is funny and unnecessary. That contract is basically immovable and a franchise crippling contact for some ball clubs. No one will trade for Kershaw with that contract.

Kershaw’s arm is screaming major DL time in the near future. The guy is great and I would love to have him on my team but he’s pitched over 200 innings for 4 consecutive years, has thrown over 18,000 pitchers during official games (probably well over 25,000 pitches in his career) and he is a power pitcher. All it takes is a small injury to go from the best pitcher in the MLB to a decent average one. I dont want to get stuck with a decent average pitcher getting paid $30mil for the next 7 years.

He is a workhorse, but he is a consistent workhorse. The Dodgers confirmed today that his contract is also insured, so if the workhorse does break down, it is covered.
This whole concept of “the big contract guy is going to break” does not bode well for good sportsmanship. He works out hard, and has the same routine. His mechanics are consistent and that leads to less wear on the body. This is not a Pujols, Hamilton, Cano contract for a guy in his late 20’s/ early 30’s, he is 25 and by the end of this he will be 32. Even IF he goes down at 30 as Koufax did, he would leave with one hell of a legacy.

As a NL West fan, with the $ 311 million dollar Dodgers become the Yankees of the West on Steroids … there has to be some cap or it will kill any competition and loose the dwindling attention of baseball in the US. Football is God in US sports and there is a competitive balance which makes it that more attractive.

I don’t have a problem with teams spending as much as they want. We’ve seen it many times, and for the last few years where the most expensive team isn’t the best team.
The O.P seems to just be jealous that a divisional rival has deep pockets. If anything, I think there should be a floor.

Neither do I, but no other sport tolerates the situation in baseball were one team can spend 20 times as much as another on fielding a team. I think revenue sharing should be increased dramatically, and teams be required to spend a certain minimum percentage of their revenues on payroll.

Of course the most expensive team isn’t always the best team, but that’s a deceptive way to put it. All spending can do is improve the probabilities of fielding the best team.

er, actually those are the ones who sign a lot of those deals and most of them end up not being worth the contract.

This is still not going to be as good as the Griffey deal when he was 22/23 and his production over those years, especially for the value. When you give a long deal to someone, you kinda want to do it under market value. This is not one of those deals and honestly can’t be considered a great deal unless he somehow outperforms the market, which at 1M/start… is going to be tough.

Dave, the onus is on you. You made an assertion that there are contracts out there, so it’s up to you to prove your point, not the other way around. The reason you can’t and won’t is because those contracts simply don’t exist.

Jim, Evan Longoria signed probably the most team-friendly deal in the history of the game for a guy of his caliber. (Signed through 2022 and making like 15-16m a year AAV).

Also, I’m not sure I get your point about Paul Goldschmidt. He’s on a 5yr/32m contract, and he’s already 26. In 4-5 years, if he’s still producing, he’s going to be the typical recipient of a large deal, not a young one.

From age 23-25, Kershaw has averaged about 6.5 WAR/year. Using a very conservative $5.5 million/WAR, he is worth over $35 million/year. It would be reasonable to think that he could continue this type of production through his peak seasons. If he does, that would mean he is already signing an under market contract without any salary inflation. If you start out with $6.0 million/WAR and account for 5% salary inflation over each of the next 7 years, he is worth about $317.5 million over the life of this contract at his current production.

From age 23-25, Kershaw has averaged about 6.5 WAR/year. Using a very conservative $5.5 million/WAR, he is worth over $35 million/year. It would be reasonable to think that he could continue this type of production through his peak seasons. If he does, that would mean he is already signing an under market contract without any salary inflation. If you start out with $6.0 million/WAR and account for 5% salary inflation over each of the next 7 years, he is worth about $317.5 million over the life of this contract at his current production.